How can God hold us responsible for our sins?

[mark kennedy]

Fundamentalism and Evangelical theology have far more to do with why people become creationists then you may realize. The key reason that Creationism is tied inextricably to original sin is because there is no other basis for the universal condemnation of sin. As a theological issue original sin and the condition of the human heart being enslaved by sin are vital to our understanding of the subject of Origins from a theological perspective.

I'm not starting this thread to provoke a debate, I do expect it will turn into one. It is my hope to raise a vital theological issue and perhaps come to a better understanding of Christian theology.

It is much easier to account for a real tree serving as a focal point of a moral test and thereby being called a tree of the knowledge of good and evil than it is to accommodate genealogy to a parable or a myth. This of course could be done if other factors demanded it. But no such factors exist. There is no sound reason why we should not interpret Genesis 3 as historical narrative and multiple reasons why we should not treat it as parable or myth. To treat it as history is to treat it as the Jews did, including Paul and Jesus. To treat it otherwise is usually motivated by some contemporary agenda that has nothing to do with Jewish history. Adam's Fall and Mine
​

Sin, Liberalism and the Gospel

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4] HUMANI GENERIS​

That's the view of three ministers, what is yours? My journey has taken me into many of the scientific aspects but the fact is that my theology has been the main spring. My views can be found here in my blog, I see no reason to reproduce them here:

Lifescience4creationists.net Bible Studies

Feel free to respond as you see fit and I'll check back later to see how the thread is progressing.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[chris4243]

I don't think the story of Adam and Eve is necessary to explain sin, and am certain it cannot be literally true due to genetic evidence and being embedded between the Creation and Flood stories (per your request I will not try to justify that now and I acknowledge that others will disagree).

The theory of evolution very nicely explains both our sinful tendencies, and that these are frequently not for the good of our species. (It's also is nicely consistent with God "letting there be... and there was".)

As for sin itself, we are each guilty of our own sin. I will not ever acknowledge anyone claiming I inherited guilt from my father, my great grandfather, nor Adam. I have done my fair share of sinning; eating some fruit I was told not to would be a laughing matter. Has anyone here not sinned, that they must have Adam so they have something to feel guilty about?

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't think the story of Adam and Eve is necessary to explain sin, and am certain it cannot be literally true due to genetic evidence and being embedded between the Creation and Flood stories (per your request I will not try to justify that now and I acknowledge that others will disagree).

The theory of evolution very nicely explains both our sinful tendencies, and that these are frequently not for the good of our species. (It's also is nicely consistent with God "letting there be... and there was".)

As for sin itself, we are each guilty of our own sin. I will not ever acknowledge anyone claiming I inherited guilt from my father, my great grandfather, nor Adam. I have done my fair share of sinning; eating some fruit I was told not to would be a laughing matter. Has anyone here not sinned, that they must have Adam so they have something to feel guilty about?

Paul would seem to think so:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).

At any rate, you seem sincere and I appreciate your candid response. I am just pointing out some of the theological issues involved and hoping for some thoughtful responses like yours.

Just one thing you might want to consider even though it might be a little off topic. The New Testament concept of sin is not really so much offenses, though that is certainly part of it. Sin is really an absence of righteousness. Doesn't it seem a little strange to you that we are all sinners even though we are created in the image of God who is perfectly righteous? Righteousness is by faith according to the New Testament and I sometimes wonder if Adam was ever really what the New Testament calls 'righteous'.

Just some food for thought.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

The key reason that Creationism is tied inextricably to original sin is because there is no other basis for the universal condemnation of sin.

Except that your sentence here, which is the basis for your whole argument, is simply and demonstrably wrong.

Theistic Evolution can fully include original sin as well, since the original sin of the single, literal, real, historical Adam described in the TE of many of us is still the origin of original sin. In fact, many more Christian belong to churches that include this view than those that deny common descent.

As ancient apes evolved into humans, at some point a human was able to rebel against God, and at some point was divinely given a soul. This person, Adam, was thus the source of original sin. Simple, easy, fully scriptural, and in line with what clergy both Protestant and Catholic (including the Pope) have stated.

Being that we've discussed this many times, I don't pretend to post it to inform you, as you already know it, and are using the common creationist tactic of repeating a falsehood even after you've been corrected and know better (like Gish's "bullfrog" incident, when he was caught doing this). But, I am posting it for those who may not know this.

I also find it rather cheap of you to be using CF as advertising space for your own side forum. I for one value CF and our community here higher than that, and wouldn't misuse it as free advertising for my forum, if I had one. You might consider that there is a reason that practically no one ever goes to your forum - but instead, you try to get to the thousands here at CF.

All so sad to see. And we wonder why new potential converts look over Christendom and hesitate to be associated with us......

Papias

 

[shernren]

I don't think the story of Adam and Eve is necessary to explain sin, and am certain it cannot be literally true due to genetic evidence and being embedded between the Creation and Flood stories (per your request I will not try to justify that now and I acknowledge that others will disagree).

The theory of evolution very nicely explains both our sinful tendencies, and that these are frequently not for the good of our species. (It's also is nicely consistent with God "letting there be... and there was".)

As for sin itself, we are each guilty of our own sin. I will not ever acknowledge anyone claiming I inherited guilt from my father, my great grandfather, nor Adam. I have done my fair share of sinning; eating some fruit I was told not to would be a laughing matter. Has anyone here not sinned, that they must have Adam so they have something to feel guilty about?

What the federalism of Adam did for us was to establish the presence, the power, and the penalty of sin in every human life since him.

(The R.C. Sproul article is a good one to read. Gluadys here is a strong proponent of the mythical view; however, most evolutionists here are actually more inclined to believe that Genesis 1 is a mythological retelling of what was nonetheless an actual, historical first sin by actual, historical first sinners, and that its place in the Bible is warranted by the place in history of the actual event it represents.)

Firstly, the federalism of Adam establishes the presence of sin in our lives. One man's sin enables another man's sin. Many sins are mutual, such as adultery and hatred; others are self-perpetuating, like violence-revenge and pride-divisiveness. One man's imperfection, combined with the fact that moral consequences are often delayed, will tempt others to sin. So sin spreads simply by virtue of the fact that humans live inexorably inter-related lives; and the only cure for the presence of sin is the second coming of Jesus, where the entire kingdom of God will be completely wiped free of sin and we will be free to love each other fully without influencing each other to sin.

Secondly, the federalism of Adam establishes the power of sin in our lives. Sin not only enables sin, it encourages sin. As people sin, their interactions begin to build up institutions and worldviews which encourage people to reject God and live for human goals and aspirations. Sinners actively teach other sinners that money is all-important, that pleasure trumps character, that God is not real, that morality is relative. This power of sin is broken gradually by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit in the Christian's life: as the Christian's mind and heart become more and more reformed by the power of God, he becomes more and more able to reject the power of sin over him - though all the while still being troubled by the presence of sin in his life and his environment.

Thirdly, the federalism of Adam establishes the penalty of sin in our lives. When Adam sinned, God judged him guilty and sentenced him to death. God judges us all guilty in Adam as well. How is that fair? It is fair because when we sin, we show that Adam is our perfect representative - not in the sense that he did no wrong, but in the sense that what he did reflects what any of us would have done were we in his shoes. Therefore, we come under the headship of Adam when we sin, and the headship of Adam proves to the world that God is just - Adam gets death when he sins, and we in Adam get death when we in Adam sin.

The penalty of sin is immediately broken by our salvation in Jesus. When we accept Jesus, we are now considered righteous in God's eyes, enabling our communion with Him here on Earth and our eventual, eternal fellowship with Him in the hereafter. And that alone causes me to reject the creationist interpretation of Romans 5:12-21. If I am in Adam, my sin leads to my death; how can I possibly escape death in my own sin unless Jesus actually plucks me out of Adam? I don't think such a thought would have been foreign to Paul's thinking, even if he doesn't state it in so many words: remember that to Paul, the Christian is a new creation, and the old has gone.

Note that this view can accommodate any kind of genetic theory of sin (genetic, in this case, referring generically to anything inherited from parents) without requiring it. From the moment I was born, I was surrounded by sinful humans. Isn't that enough to groom me into a sinner without postulating some kind of genetically-transmitted sin nature? Of course, sometimes sins do really seem to run in the family, and these things happen in the spiritual which the physical has no explanation for: but that need not be a universal explanation of all possible sin.

What, then, makes Jesus sinless? I would say it is His nature as the Incarnate Son of God to be sinless. I do not think the virgin birth is responsible for His sinlessness. If anyone born without a male genetic contribution is sinless, why - that is something we can simulate ourselves with any old denucleated female ovum, as Dolly the sheep shows. To reduce the sinlessness of Jesus to a mere biological aberration would make His life and ministry little more than the freakshow of a mutant. His virgin birth instead plays the important role of corroborating history to prove to the nation of Israel that He is the Messiah.

So what does Adam do for me? He does not make me feel guilty for something I did not do; rather, he reminds me that it is in my very nature to regularly do the things that I should feel guilty for, and shows me the helplessness of my estate before I consider the glory of God's rescue.

 

[Assyrian]

How can God hold us responsible for our sins?

Seems an odd title when the thread is about God holding us responsible for someone else's sin.

Paul would seem to think so:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).

Unless Paul was speaking figuratively like he described in verse 14, Adam was a figure of the one who was to come.

 

[gluadys]

What the federalism of Adam did for us was to establish the presence, the power, and the penalty of sin in every human life since him.

(The R.C. Sproul article is a good one to read. Gluadys here is a strong proponent of the mythical view; however, most evolutionists here are actually more inclined to believe that Genesis 1 is a mythological retelling of what was nonetheless an actual, historical first sin by actual, historical first sinners, and that its place in the Bible is warranted by the place in history of the actual event it represents.)

Actually, I think that is what I have been saying too.

I just wrote the following in a pm

"In some sense there did have to be an actual individual Adam. There had to have been a first person who could conceive the idea 'I have sinned.' And each of us is Adam when we come to the same realization."

I would agree that Genesis 2-3 is a mythological retelling of that experience both in the first human being to experience it, and in each of us as we experience it.

The experience is real. We really do sin; we really become conscious of sin. And there must have been a real first historical instance of that experience. It does not follow that historically, that first experience of sinfulness came about through eating fruit. That can be a symbolic description of whatever the actual first sin was. (It could also be historical too.) But whatever the actual history is, the way it is told is in the form of a mythological story. And it is still a mythological story that is, in the profoundest sense, true.

History is simply not the only way to tell truth.

Firstly, the federalism of Adam establishes the presence of sin in our lives.

I am not going to quote the rest in full as I take no issue with it. It is a good presentation of the "federal head" perspective. Another alternative is the "Adam as type of humanity/type of Christ" idea Paul uses in Romans.

To quote from myself again the interesting thing is that "whether one approaches Adam as a "type", a "federal head" or a "personification", the point is that Adam in some sense stands for all of us. And whether the creation story is historical or mythical, it is about all of us, not just one person."



As for the OP, creationism is only tied inextricably to original sin because Christianity is inextricably tied to original sin. One doesn't get rid of original sin by switching from anti-evolution creationism to evolutionary creationism. Nor does one get rid of original sin by viewing Adam mythologically instead of (or as well as) historically. In fact, if Adam is mythologically every human being, it is all the more the case that each and every one of us partakes in original sin. That is what it means to say Adam is mythologically all of humanity. It means that we all participate in Adam's humanity, which is a fallen, sinful humanity.

I expect what Mark really means is that the doctrine of original sin is inextricably linked to anti-evolution creationism. And if that is the case, he is simply wrong.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark wrote: The key reason that Creationism is tied inextricably to original sin is because there is no other basis for the universal condemnation of sin.

Except that your sentence here, which is the basis for your whole argument, is simply and demonstrably wrong.

You have never demonstrated anything of the sort and my statement is in keeping with the clear testimony of Scripture and the dogma of the RCC. You make these biting and sweeping indictments but you never support your assertions with anything substantive. I'll say one thing for you, you are at least consistent.

Theistic Evolution can fully include original sin as well, since the original sin of the single, literal, real, historical Adam described in the TE of many of us is still the origin of original sin. In fact, many more Christian belong to churches that include this view than those that deny common descent.

You simply can't have it both ways, Adam can't be our first parent and have ancestors. No matter how many times I show you this you continue to insist on promoting a contradiction as a resolution.

As ancient apes evolved into humans, at some point a human was able to rebel against God, and at some point was divinely given a soul. This person, Adam, was thus the source of original sin. Simple, easy, fully scriptural, and in line with what clergy both Protestant and Catholic (including the Pope) have stated.

Adam was not just given a soul, he was created from dust and Eve was made from his rib. I think it's interesting how you are tied into original sin and the historical Adam but can't admit that Adam couldn't be our first parent and have a soulless ape father. Luke said Adam was son of God, does that mean that God is a soulless ape?

Being that we've discussed this many times, I don't pretend to post it to inform you, as you already know it, and are using the common creationist tactic of repeating a falsehood even after you've been corrected and know better (like Gish's "bullfrog" incident, when he was caught doing this). But, I am posting it for those who may not know this.

So you call me a liar again, your absolutely shameless. Your repeated propagation of this ill conceived, self-contradictory distortion of two mutually exclusive concepts is breathtaking in it's audacity. It is amazing not because you have the audacity but because your Darwinian cohorts don't think enough of you to stop you from pursuing this fallacious line of argumentation.

I also find it rather cheap of you to be using CF as advertising space for your own side forum. I for one value CF and our community here higher than that, and wouldn't misuse it as free advertising for my forum, if I had one. You might consider that there is a reason that practically no one ever goes to your forum - but instead, you try to get to the thousands here at CF.

It's a blog dude! I put a forum on it in order to be able to talk to creationists without having them subjected to these cheap trolling tactics and shameless inflammatory rhetoric.

All so sad to see. And we wonder why new potential converts look over Christendom and hesitate to be associated with us......

Papias

People come to Christ because God brings them to him. The only reason I converted to Christianity is because there was a clear standard, a canon to use a theological concept you may be dimly aware of.

What your doing is called trolling and it's rude. More importantly, your contradictory thesis has been refuted. Go ahead and continue to defend it, I will have a ball drumming this obvious fact into your head.

God help you Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually, I think that is what I have been saying too.

I just wrote the following in a pm

"In some sense there did have to be an actual individual Adam. There had to have been a first person who could conceive the idea 'I have sinned.' And each of us is Adam when we come to the same realization."

I would agree that Genesis 2-3 is a mythological retelling of that experience both in the first human being to experience it, and in each of us as we experience it.

It's is rather curious that the early chapters can be dismissed as myth when the credibility of the New Testament hinges on it's historicity. The Gospels and the book of Acts are historical in their character just as Genesis is an historical narrative in it's presentation. There is really no way of getting away from this, neither Jesus or Paul treat the Genesis accounts as myth, why should we?

To quote RC Sproul:

To treat it as history is to treat it as the Jews did, including Paul and Jesus. To treat it otherwise is usually motivated by some contemporary agenda that has nothing to do with Jewish history.​

I concur.

The experience is real. We really do sin; we really become conscious of sin. And there must have been a real first historical instance of that experience. It does not follow that historically, that first experience of sinfulness came about through eating fruit. That can be a symbolic description of whatever the actual first sin was. (It could also be historical too.) But whatever the actual history is, the way it is told is in the form of a mythological story. And it is still a mythological story that is, in the profoundest sense, true.

Ok, no it's not talk as a mythological story, it's an historical narrative and has always been understood as such. Now it's perfectly fine to question the length of days or to be tentative with regards other literal interpretations but Adam being some mythical personification of humanity is strictly extra-biblical.

History is simply not the only way to tell truth.

When a narrative is presented as history it is either true or false, if it's a myth then it's false.

I am not going to quote the rest in full as I take no issue with it. It is a good presentation of the "federal head" perspective. Another alternative is the "Adam as type of humanity/type of Christ" idea Paul uses in Romans.

That's not how Paul is using itThis is not how that word is used in the original. The word translated figure actually means:

From G5180; a die (as struck), that is, (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy a shape, that is, a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance; specifically a sampler (“type”), that is, a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning) (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)​

This is how the word is used in other passages:

tupoi

1 Cor 10:6, here it means literal idolaters are examples of what not to do.
1 Cor 10:11, here it means literal people who murmured, same meaning.
1 Pe 5:3, here it means literal leaders of the church are examples not Lords.


tupon

John 20:25, Here it means the literal print of the nail in Jesus hand.
John 20:25, Here it means the same thing.
Acts 7:44, Here it means a literal pattern.
Acts 23:25, Here it means the manner in which a letter is literally written.
Rom 6:17, Here it means a literal doctrine.
Php 3:17, Here it means a literal Paul and his companions.
2 Th 3:9, Same meaning here.
Titus 2:7, Here it means a literal pattern of good works.
Heb 8:5, Here is means literal Christians.


tupoV

Rom 5:14, Here it means a literal Adam
1 Ti 4:12 Here it means the literal Timothy be an example to others.


tupouV

Acts 7:43, here it means a literal idol, that represents a pagan god.
1 Th 1:7, here it means that literal believers are to be examples to other believers.

Paul also makes mention of Adam in his first letter to the Corinthians. There is no indication that Paul is speaking figuratively of Adam:
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)
Genesis

Here are a few cross references.

1) Historic 6 Days of Creation (Romans 1:18-22; Heb. 11:3)
2) Adam and Eve Created (Luke 3:38; Rev. 22:3)
3) Sin and Death Through Adam (Rom 5:12-21)
4) Wicked Cain Slew Righteous Abel (I John 3:12; Matt. 23:35)
5) Generations: Adam to Noah (Luke 3:23-38)
6) Antediluvian Period (Heb. 11:7; I Peter 3:19-20)
7) Flood Prevails for 150 Days (II Peter 2:5; Luke 12:27)

To quote from myself again the interesting thing is that "whether one approaches Adam as a "type", a "federal head" or a "personification", the point is that Adam in some sense stands for all of us. And whether the creation story is historical or mythical, it is about all of us, not just one person."

I don't really disagree with that statement.

As for the OP, creationism is only tied inextricably to original sin because Christianity is inextricably tied to original sin. One doesn't get rid of original sin by switching from anti-evolution creationism to evolutionary creationism. Nor does one get rid of original sin by viewing Adam mythologically instead of (or as well as) historically. In fact, if Adam is mythologically every human being, it is all the more the case that each and every one of us partakes in original sin. That is what it means to say Adam is mythologically all of humanity. It means that we all participate in Adam's humanity, which is a fallen, sinful humanity.

I expect what Mark really means is that the doctrine of original sin is inextricably linked to anti-evolution creationism. And if that is the case, he is simply wrong.

That's not even close to what I was getting at. Creationism is inextricably tied to original sin because of the Pauline doctrine of original sin. I have never been anti-evolution or anti-science, it's is Darwinism that is anti-theistic. I simply affirm the historicity of the Scriptures. Creationism is not a core doctrine, it's an intellectual side road otherwise known as evidential apologetics. It's a Christian defense of the historicity of Scripture, original sin being the most vital doctrine of the faith effected.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Walter Kovacs]

How can God hold us responsible for our sins?

Pretty easily.

 

[mark kennedy]

Pretty easily.

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Walter Kovacs]

We sin. We are responsible. God holds us as such.

 

[Papias]

​

mark wrote:

You have never demonstrated anything of the sort and my statement is in keeping with the clear testimony of Scripture and the dogma of the RCC. You make these biting and sweeping indictments but you never support your assertions with anything substantive.

Mark, as you were shown in multiple other threads, both the official declarations of the Catholic church as well as recent statements by both Pope JPII and the current pope affirm that the Catholic position includes both evolution as well as an historical Adam - so your statement:

The key reason that Creationism is tied inextricably to original sin is because there is no other basis for the universal condemnation of sin.

Is simply wrong, and unsupported by any current Catholic official statement or Papal statement. It does seem to be supported by your views in your own mind.

Look, we can repeat that official Catholic statement as well as the statement by Pope. First, from the Humani Generis:

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -
​

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis 36 Available online at CATHOLIC LIBRARY: Humani Generis (1950)


and the Pope's Statement:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

-Pope Benedict XVI

For everybody to see how mark has been shown this repeatedly, and still failed to admit it, some of the other threads are here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7505537/
and
http://www.christianforums.com/t7524679-4/






Mark wrote:

Adam was not just given a soul, he was created from dust and Eve was made from his rib.

In the other thread I asked for any Catholic official statement (or any Catholic support at all) requiring that the rib-woman story in genesis be interpreted literally. In response you ran away. So I ask again - do you have any support for your statement, or do you just make statements without support?

Adam couldn't be our first parent and have a soulless ape father.

Why not? I've shown over and over that this is a Catholic position, and you haven't shown any reason why Adam, as the first being to cross the ape to human line, wouldn't be both the first human parent as well as having a soulless ape father. So, again I'll ask - why not?

It's a blog dude! I put a forum on it in order to be able to talk to creationists without having them subjected to these cheap trolling tactics and shameless inflammatory rhetoric.

Some blog. I see one (sorta) blog post, and pretty much dead silence as far as conversations go. Besides, and more importantly, since you've now got that wonderful conversation place, why are you posting inflammatory rhetoric and cheap trolling tactics here? Why not post in your nice forum instead? Or, actually post regular blogs, like a lot of actual Christian bloggers do? But, on second thought - please do post here - you do a much better job (by example) of showing Christians how harmful creationism is than I could ever dream of doing. Thanks for that.

God help you Papias

And I wonder how that stacks up in light of forum rules?

Mark, as we've seen, both the evolution of humans from anceint apes as well as a single, historical Adam as the origin of original sin are fully Catholic doctrines supported by both official edict and papal statements.

Your continued refusal to admit that only ranks with your many other times you've refused to admit things even after being shown the evidence.

Oh, we'll have to add this one in there:

original sin being the most vital doctrine of the faith effected.

I have to admit, it's still surprising to see you refuse to understand that a single, historical Adam who caused original sin is fully compatible with theistic evolution.

Papias

 

[crawfish]

That's the view of three ministers, what is yours? My journey has taken me into many of the scientific aspects but the fact is that my theology has been the main spring. My views can be found here in my blog, I see no reason to reproduce them here:

What I see from those preachers (MacArthur in particular) is someone who does not want to admit the significant changes that Christianity (the residuals/sacraments/traditions surrounding it as well as some core beliefs) has undergone throughout the centuries, and does not want to see that society has changed in ways that make our traditional methods of reaching the lost less effective or irrelevant. Traditionalists like this hold onto some romantic notion of the church of the past, as more cohesive, stronger and better, and that is simply not true. One simply has to read scripture to understand the vast differences between the early Christian communities. One simply has to read historical theology to understand the vast differences in interpretive techniques between the church fathers and theologians throughout history. There are a great deal more differences between the current "traditional" church and the first-century church than there are between modern traditional and emergent churches.

This is why I have trouble accepting the message of such people. They have a warped view of reality. They think they are standing strong for Christ, but in fact they are standing strong for their own comfort level. They portray a God that is boxed in current culture and understanding.

As to the question of how God can hold us accountable for sin if Adam is not historical, I have little to add to the posts above. We are responsible for our own sins. Paul is not confirming Adam as historical, nor does his point require it; he is using Adam as a type to make a point about Christ.

 

[gluadys]

Ok, no it's not talk as a mythological story, it's an historical narrative and has always been understood as such.

Actually the question of "historical or mythical" doesn't arise until people start setting them in opposition. Most of scripture was written when people had not made that distinction yet. Their mythology was their history and vice versa. I agree they understood the narratives as history, but they also understood them as mythology, because in an ancient understanding history and mythology were one and the same thing.

It is only we moderns who put them into different categories and quibble about which is which.

When a narrative is presented as history it is either true or false, if it's a myth then it's false.

How do we know that any narrative "is presented as history"? There are simply no key elements in a narrative that tells you what is history and what is not.

To quote from myself again the interesting thing is that "whether one approaches Adam as a "type", a "federal head" or a "personification", the point is that Adam in some sense stands for all of us. And whether the creation story is historical or mythical, it is about all of us, not just one person."

I don't really disagree with that statement.

Good. Then let's build on that common ground. Is there really anything else worth arguing over so far as the doctrine of original sin is concerned?

I have never been anti-evolution or anti-science, it's is Darwinism that is anti-theistic.

I'd be interested in how you define "Darwinism" and how you see that as being different from the science of evolution.

If evolution is to be distinguished from Darwinism, and
if Darwinism is anti-theistic, then
it follows that evolutionary Christians are not "Darwinists" and are not promoting "Darwinism".

Personally, I don't like the tendency now appearing to distinguish "evolution" from "Darwinism" (which comes, I believe, from ID sources) as it makes it quite impossible to know what any individual means when they use the word "Darwinism" (Darwinist, Darwinian, etc.) It tends to change meaning even from paragraph to paragraph, sometimes referring to a scientific concept, sometimes to a philosophy, and sometimes (as you say) to anti-theism.

I see no reason to reject any part of the theory of evolution because of some anti-theistic philosophy which has acquired the label of "Darwinism". That's a different kettle of fish entirely.

 

[JVPITER]

You simply can't have it both ways, Adam can't be our first parent and have ancestors. No matter how many times I show you this you continue to insist on promoting a contradiction as a resolution.

Adam was not just given a soul, he was created from dust and Eve was made from his rib. I think it's interesting how you are tied into original sin and the historical Adam but can't admit that Adam couldn't be our first parent and have a soulless ape father. Luke said Adam was son of God, does that mean that God is a soulless ape?

Hi

Why can't Adam be our first parent and have a soulless father? There only seems to be a contradiction with Gen 2 if you read it strictly as literal history. Is that what you're referring to?

Thanks in advance.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

We sin. We are responsible. God holds us as such.

I suppose we should examing more the biblical definition of "sin"

Blue Letter Bible - Search Results for YNG
(sin)
occurs 468 times in 406 verses in the YNG
Page 1 / 17 inexact matches (Gen 4:7 - Lev 4:3)

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Young) 1 John 5:18 We have known that every one who hath been begotten of God doth not sin, but he who was begotten of God doth keep himself, and the evil one doth not touch him;